Re: [PATCH v2 03/12] coresight: Extend the PIDR mask to cover relevant bits in PIDR2

[Suzuki K Poulose]

On 28/06/17 18:35, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> On 26 June 2017 at 09:22, Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > As per coresight standards, PIDR2 register has the following format :
> >
> >  [2-0]  - JEP106_bits6to4
> >  [3]    - JEDEC, designer ID is specified by JEDEC.
> >
> > However some of the drivers only use mask of 0x3 for the PIDR2 leaving
> > bits [3-2] unchecked, which could potentially match the component for
> > a different device altogether. This patch fixes the mask and the
> > corresponding id bits for the existing devices.
> >
> > Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > I have not touched the TPIU ids for Ux500 (see commit: 4339b699),
> > as I don't have a platform to fix/correct the ids.
> > ---
> >  .../coresight/coresight-dynamic-replicator.c       |  4 ++--
> >  drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etb10.c      |  4 ++--
> >  drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm3x.c      | 24 +++++++++++-----------
> >  drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-funnel.c     |  4 ++--
> >  drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-stm.c        |  8 ++++----
> >  drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tmc.c        |  4 ++--
> >  drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpiu.c       |  4 ++--
> >  7 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-dynamic-replicator.c b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-dynamic-replicator.c
> > index 1675031..57babd8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-dynamic-replicator.c
> > +++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-dynamic-replicator.c
> > @@ -177,8 +177,8 @@ static const struct dev_pm_ops replicator_dev_pm_ops = {
> >
> >  static struct amba_id replicator_ids[] = {
> >         {
> > -               .id     = 0x0003b909,
> > -               .mask   = 0x0003ffff,
> > +               .id     = 0x000bb909,
> > +               .mask   = 0x000bffff,
>
> Shouldn't this be 0x000fffff rather than 0x000bffff?

Yes, you're right. Thanks for spotting the typo. Will fix it.

Suzuki